Connecting and generating

Chan (2013:67) proposes that ‘(c)onnecting is a process in which writers generate links between ideas or new meaning by connecting ideas in the source texts with their own knowledge’ based on the work of Spivey (1984,1990,1997).

Kintsch and van Dijk (1978) argue that for texts to be comprehensible they require both a microstructure and a macrostructure. Individual propositions (sentences / phrases) need to be semantically linked to those around them in order to create coherence at a local

51

level. Texts which contain more than one idea also require a macrostructure or global organising idea to link the various microstructures together in order to remain coherent. Rather like Grabe and Stoller's text model discussed in the previous section, Kintsch and van Dijk propose that readers review the ideas from the text, deleting ideas which are not central to understanding the text, generalising or grouping together similar ideas, and gradually linking all the ideas together in a linear or hierarchical pattern called a text base. The construction of the text base relies on making connections between explicit information stated in the text and some implicit knowledge from the reader’s memory.

However, for the purposes of this study we are particularly interested in how multiple texts are connected together in the mind of the reader.

Rouet (2006) suggests that when readers have to integrate multiple sources of information they are confronted by three additional problems compared to when working from a single text. Firstly, there is no coherence between the texts. There have not been written or designed to fit neatly together into one text base or macrostructure. Secondly, there may be differences, discrepancies or even contradictions between the texts. Lastly, when writing in response to a complex task there may be no correspondence between the content of the documents and the task, unlike comprehension questions which are designed to ‘fit’ the text they accompany. Rouet suggests that, because of these problems, those engaged in reading into writing have the additional burden of evaluating the worth of each source, selecting the ideas which are relevant and shaping them into a coherent whole.

Rouet (2006) suggests that when comprehending multiple documents readers construct a documents model. This model is made up of a source model and a situations

52

The source model contains information typically found in references and relates to

where the texts came from, who wrote them and when. In addition, information about the type of document, the setting and context of the document are included. All of these factors are used by experienced readers to make judgements about the reliability of the source. Not all of the information in the source model is explicit, much of it will be based on the reader’s prior knowledge about the author’s motivation for writing, the prevailing culture or attitudes at the time and in the place where the document was written.

The situations model contains information about the contents of the various

documents, including details such as main ideas and propositions.

Links are made not only linking source details to contents (who said what) but also between contents (whether the contents of one document support or contradict another) and between sources (this source is more reliable than that one). The source to source links and understanding why one writer may be motivated to propose one interpretation of events and another writer proposes a quite different interpretation is important in allowing readers to reconcile conflicting accounts / arguments.

Perhaps the complex web of links proposed by Rouet goes some way to explaining the findings of Britt and Sommer (2004). Britt and Sommer proposed the Restructuring Hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that when students were given a task of constructing ‘a well-structured initial representation of a text prior to reading a subsequent text’ this task ‘will aid in the between-text integration process’. This concurs with the work of Gil, Braten, Vidal-Abarca and Strømsø (2010) who concluded that writing summary essays led to better integration and understanding than writing argument essays.

Indeed, Cerdan and Vidal-Abarca (2008) concluded that the reading behaviour of students answering intra-text questions (where answers could be found within a single text)

53

differed significantly from students asked to write an essay which demanded integration of information across multiple texts. They also concluded that, whilst cognitively more demanding, the integration of information across texts led to deeper understanding of the information contained in the texts.

Goldman (2004) suggests that for expert readers generating intertextual links is part of normal reading behaviour. Goldman suggests that experts tend to ‘make cross text comparisons to corroborate information, pay attention to the source of the research’ and engage in strategic reading behaviour.

Therefore, when readers become writers attempting to meet the demands of a task, they have to engage in many more cognitively demanding processes than simply constructing a text base. The additional burden of evaluating sources, making links between texts, resolving contradictions and deliberating what each text offers in terms of meeting the demands of the task, places heavy demands on the working memory and cognitive resources of the reader / writer. Generation of a ‘superordinate’ macro structure, that draws upon all the sources in response to the task, demands knowledge transformation. In the process of generating a new ‘superordinate’ macrostructure the reader / writer will need to decide how to order and organise their ideas. This will be discussed next.